Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kotravva Somappa Mudagal, a District Judge, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, seeking to quash orders dated 30/01/2013 and 31/01/2013 passed by the Registrar General and the High Court in its administrative side. The orders pertained to being spoken to in contempt proceedings. The respondents included Badarinarayana Nandkishore Ladda and others, as well as the Registrar General of the High Court. The petitioner was represented by Sri V M Sheelvant, and the State was represented by Smt. K Vidyavathi, AGA. The court, comprising Justice K.L. Manjunath and Justice A.N. Venugopala Gowda, dismissed the petition on the ground that the orders challenged were administrative in nature and not subject to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. The court held that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner was violated, and the writ petition was not maintainable. The decision was rendered on 09/10/2013.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, a District Judge, sought to quash orders dated 30/01/2013 and 31/01/2013 passed by the Registrar General and the High Court in administrative side regarding contempt proceedings. The Court held that such administrative orders are not amenable to writ jurisdiction as they do not involve adjudication of rights or violation of fundamental rights. (Paras 1-4) B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Administrative Orders - Scope of Challenge - The Court observed that the orders challenged were passed in the administrative capacity of the High Court and not in exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Hence, no writ lies against them. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against orders passed by the Registrar General and the High Court in its administrative capacity in connection with contempt proceedings.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Law Points
- Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is not available against administrative orders of the High Court
- Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971 does not confer a right to challenge administrative actions
- Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to quash orders passed in administrative capacity of the High Court
